Perhaps you might be a little embarrassed if you think about this more deeply and realise the basic error that you’ve made.
I think you may have misunderstood the central point about limited liability.
“You neglect to mention that the share holders are share holders by choice. They get to choose if/when/where they will risk their own personal assets.”
I didn’t mention it because it is besides the point. Why? Because limited liability isn’t provided at the expense of the shareholders. It is provided at the expense of almost everyone else.
When shareholders are granted limited liability, this means that “we the people” often have to pick up the tab when the business in question takes risks.
We, as suppliers, employees, customers, taxpayers and joint owners of the state may be left with unpaid invoices when the business in question takes risks which don’t pay off and ends up going into administration.
Yet, if we’re not shareholders, we don’t get a say in the Annual General Meetings, to decide how much risk is taken by the business in question.
You can argue that if you don’t want to take risks, then don’t be a customer, employee or supplier to any limited liability business — but that is hardly practical in the modern world.
The point is that if “we the people” grant limited liability to corporate shareholders, perhaps we should do a similar thing for citizens, by granting them a Basic Income.
“I find it odd that many of your commentors are so willing to buy into this. It’s nonsense and anyone that is actually familiar with business and risk would laugh at it.”
Perhaps my “commentors” are “buying into this,” because they’ve actually understood the article much better than you have. Just a thought. Kindly meant. :)